filmscanners: Sorting OT mail
The server will always place "filmscanners" at the beginning of the Subject line when a user posts to the list (even if the entire Subject line is deleted before replying). If a user *replies* to a previous post without deleting the subject line, the server will begin the Subject line with "RE:filmscanners". This should not prevent sorting by subject, however, since the rest of the "Subject" line may be different. -Original Message- From: Tony Sleep [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, March 23, 2001 10:30 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: filmscanners: Re: OT messages OTquestions. On Thu, 22 Mar 2001 22:26:52 -0600 Laurie Solomon ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: I believe that the "Re: filmscanner" portion of the header is not an option of the sender of the message but is automatically added to the subject header by the server. Correct. This was repeatedly asked for by some people who wanted to sort their mail by subject. This does not preclude changing the remainder of the content of the subject header after "Re: filmscanner." Quite right. In fact you can also remove the 'RE:filmscanners:' bit from replies. Whether or not the server will promptly put it back I dunno, but doubtless there will be howls of protest from folk using the subject line to sort their OT mail ;) Regards Tony Sleep http://www.halftone.co.uk - Online portfolio exhibit; + film scanner info comparisons
filmscanners: Issues for the moderator
Yes, and he posts far too many Off Topic messages. -Original Message- From: Hersch Nitikman [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, March 22, 2001 2:04 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: filmscanners: RE: OT UK Copyright" Issues for the moderator" I'll second that one. At 12:55 PM 03/22/2001 -0500, you wrote: Mr., Moderator, I think you should boot this guy from the group. He is rude, has NO ethics and a racist to boot. Thank you Dale - Original Message - From: "Dicky" [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, March 22, 2001 10:31 AM Subject: Re: filmscanners: RE: OT UK Copyright Issues - Original Message - From: "Cooke, Julie" [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, March 22, 2001 10:34 AM Subject: filmscanners: RE: OT UK Copyright Issues Julis my deargo fuck yourself, and do it quite speedly so that we can be rid of youand all like you. Richard - no time for twit's - Corbett
filmscanners: Changing the subject line: was : Jay Maisel Interview with Pictures and Link
Yes, please change the subject line when you change the subject. The "was:abc xyz" could help. -Original Message- From: Lynn Allen [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, March 21, 2001 9:26 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: filmscanners: Jay Maisel Interview with Pictures and Link... This msg brings up a point I've wanted to address, but haven't. Please note the Subject. Then note the response, and the question it answered. do others think it would be helpful to change the Subject line when responding to a thread that's gotten a bit off-track? Like "copyrights," the msg doesn't have a lot to do with "Jay Maisel." It's just a thought, on my part--I'm too new at this business to offer any definite solutions, and I certainly don't mean to criticize. I happen to *like* the interplay that goes on here on the List, and find it rewarding, informative, and useful (else I wouldn't be here). But possibly adding a new Subject, with the "was:abc xyz" extension would help people who are trying to clear their mail quickly. Do you think? Or am I out in left-field again. Best regards--LRA
RE: filmscanners: Spritscan 4000 sensor cleaning kit
Since this link doesn't work (at least not for me and apparently for lots of other people) here is the entire text of the FAQ that the link is supposed to take you to: My SprintScan 4000 scanner cycles continuously when I turn it on. What's wrong? (Ref. #000321-0074) Description: My SprintScan 4000 scanner continuously repeats the scanning cycle (or an internal motor is running) when I turn it on. What's wrong? Solution: The SCSI selector switch on the back of the scanner may be incorrectly set. Follow these steps to set it correctly: Turn off your computer. Turn off your scanner. Set the SCSI selector switch on the back of the scanner to a value between 1 and 6. (Do not use values 0, 7, 8, or 9.) Make sure you select a value that is not being used by any other SCSI device connected your computer. Turn on the scanner. Turn on your computer. If the SCSI selector switch is not the problem, contact Polaroid Technical Support and request that a SprintScan 4000 Cleaning Brush Accessory, part number CPS 546, be sent to you. For customers in the US, call 1-800-432-5355 (Mon-Fri, 8am to 8pm EST). For customers outside the US, find the phone number for your local Polaroid service by clicking here: http://www.polaroid.com/service/phone.html -Original Message- From: John Hayward at Hopco [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, March 20, 2001 6:04 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: filmscanners: Spritscan 4000 sensor cleaning kit John: Try the following URL and go to question #6. http://www.polaroidwork.com/home/LLframeset.jsp?body=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.po laro idwork.com%2Flisting%2FListing.jsp%3FFOLDER%253C%253Efolder_id%3D58263%2 6FOL DER%253C%253EbrowsePath%3D58263%26ASSORTMENT%253C%253East_id%3D58263%26b mUID %3D984362506401 If that doesn't work, seek out the FAQ's under the heading of Online Assistance at http://www.polaroidwork.com. Or just call the 800 number if you are in the USA. John
RE: filmscanners: Scanning negatives for archiving
I have also used this technique with success. It is the workflow that evolved for me while doing production drum scans to be handed off either for retouching and photocomposition or for archiving. The idea in that environment was to get the maximum amount of information in the scan while degrading the image as little as possible. Usually the retouched scan or composition was put back on film using an 8x10" high resolution film recorder or printed directly to photo paper using a Lambda printer. Often these images were enlarged enormously, so maintaining image quality was very important. I have since ventured into the realm of CCD scanning and been very interested to read all the reviews and comments on this list about various scanning software packages on the market. I've tried three of them, so far, and none of them have made me very happy. I have been unable to get results as good by using any "presets" or automatic functions in any of the scanning software I have tried, so for now I am sticking with what I know. One point worth making: I first set the "Auto Range Options" in Photoshop for both "Black Clip" and "White Clip" to 0.00%. The Default setting in Photoshop (and in VueScan, I believe) is 0.5% which "chops off" the top and bottom of the histogram, "clipping" all those pixels to absolute black and white. In order to get the absolute maximum tonal range, I don't want to "clip" any pixels to absolute black or white. I make that decision later, if necessary to improve the tonal range elsewhere in the image. To set the "Auto Range Options" on a Mac, open the "Levels" dialog. Hold down the OPTION key (ALT on a PC) and the "Auto" button on the "Levels" dialog will change to "Options...". Click the "Options..." button to set the ranges. To summarize my current workflow for negatives: 1) I use SilverFast Ai Version 5 and a Polaroid SprintScan 4000 scanner on a Mac. 2) Do a prescan of the desired negative frame. 3) Crop to include the entire image and some of the border all the way around. 4) Choose "48 Bit HDR Color" (comparable to a 48 bit "raw" scan in VueScan, I guess) and 4000 dpi (really ppi, but I won't argue about that for the moment) and hit the "Scan" button. 5) After the scan has opened in Photoshop, press Command-I (for Mac) or CTRL-I (for Windows) to invert the image. 6) Use the Rectangle Selection Marquee to select an area completely inside the image area. 7) Press Command-L (Mac) or CTRL-L (PC) to open the "Levels" dialog. 8) Press the "Auto" button to set White and Black points automatically. If the film has bad scratches or dust, the scratches or dust may cause "Auto Levels" to calculate the White and Black points based on non-image information; so if there *are* bad scratches or dust, I may do some manual spotting to clean up the image before hitting the "Auto" Levels button. 9) With "RGB" showing in the "Channel" drop-down list, move the center "Input Levels" slider to adjust brightness of the RGB image, if necessary. After clicking the slider with the mouse you can make superfine adjustments by hitting the UP and DOWN ARROW keys. 10) Click the "Save" button on the Levels dialog to save the Levels settings in a "Levels" file with the same name as the image. 11) Click "Cancel" in the "Levels" dialog box. 12) Click on the image to get rid of my Selection Marquee. 13) Crop the scan to just outside the image area. 14) Reopen the "Levels" dialog. 15) Click the "Load" button to load the previously saved "Levels" file. 16) If the color needs some adjustment, I then choose the "RED", "BLUE" or "GREEN" channel(s) individually from the "Channel" drop-down list and move the center "Input Levels" slider for each one as necessary. 17) At this point I am done with "Levels" so I click "OK". 18) Use the "Rubber Stamp" tool to manually clean up dust spots, scratches, etc. 19) From the "Image" menu, choose "Mode""8 Bits/Channel". 20) Save the file as a TIFF with LZW compression. 21) At this point I have a 24 bit TIFF with the maximum amount of information I can put into it. 22) If the exposure or lighting was less than optimal, or for some other reason I need to make adjustments to the contrast to expand or compress the dynamic range in one part of the tonal range or another, I use the "Curves" tool. So far, I have found the UI of both VueScan and Silverfast to be mystifying for anything other than a raw scan (yes, I have a demo of the latest version of VueScan). Nothing I do seems to give me results as good with as little effort as the steps I've outlined above. I may keep trying, but I'm happy with the results I'm getting and scanning software has a very steep learning curve in my experience. It's hard to justify spending the time to learn it when the
RE: filmscanners: OT: burning CDs/easy cd creator
It's hard for me to believe that anyone gets "flawless" performance from Adaptect Easy CD Creator Version 4.03a. I haven't used it for image files yet, but my experience with burning music CDs has not been good and has made me want to find an alternative both for music and for archiving scanned photos. Maybe it will be fine for images, but the performance with music has not inspired any confidence in me. The CDs often have errors that are not reported by Easy CD Creator; I only find out later when the disk stops playing halfway through a song or starts "dropping" chunks of music or starts making noises that shouldn't be there. I get this even when playing the CD back on the same machine on which it was recorded and even on CDs burned at 1X speed. Anyone else have this experience? Can anyone else recommend a more reliable piece of software? I'm very reluctant to upgrade to a Version 5 if this basic and very serious problem has not been fixed. For burning, I'm using a Matsushita UJDA310 drive in a Dell Inspiron 7500 laptop that has a 600 MHz Pentium III and 256 MB RAM running Win 2K. -Original Message- From: Larry Berman [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Sunday, March 11, 2001 9:00 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: filmscanners: OT: burning cd's/easy cd creator The company that's putting out EZ CD Creator is Roxio: http://www.roxio.com/ I'm using 4.0 flawlessly and can't imagine what a $79 upgrade could be worth. Larry
RE: filmscanners: Clarity! Dual Monitor Hell (Heaven!)
I use dual 21" monitors and a 6x8" Wacom stylus tablet on Win2K and have done the same on Macs. Works great. I have always hated mice. I use a trackball in addition to the tablet. I would have had to quit my job after a couple of months if I had to use a mouse all day. Ergonomically I find mice very stressful due to rotation of the wrist and tension in the pointing finger. I'm constantly amazed to see people choose mice over other alternatives. For me, a trackball or stylus is much more comfortable to use and gives more precise control. With a mouse the "fine" motions that require the most precise control are done with the arm or wrist, while the fingers just click. With a trackball or stylus the "fine" motions are controlled by the fingers - which have fine muscle control evolved and trained into them. The arm is then used only for large movements much more suited to arm muscles. Try before you buy. Some people never seem to be able to adapt to a stylus, a trackball or a trackpad. -Original Message- From: Larry Berman [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, March 09, 2001 1:30 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: filmscanners: Clarity! Dual Monitor Hell (Heaven!) I think anyone that's using dual monitors on a graphics system is using a tablet also. It offers much more control than a mouse. The drivers for your tablet have to support dual monitors. All current Wacom drivers do and have for the past year. My 6x8 is comfortable enough across both monitors. I got used to it right away. Larry How many of you with dual monitors also use a tablet instead of (or in addition to) a mouse? If you use a tablet, how well does it work with dual monitors? Is it workable, or only workable with one of the two monitors? ::: Larry Berman Web Sites for Artists: http://BermanGraphics.com Compare Image Compression from the top Graphics Programs: http://ImageCompress.com Explore the Art Show Jury process from a web site: http://ArtShowJury.com :::
RE: filmscanners: Anyone using Win2K? Does is manage color like W98SE?
"Top 10 Reasons to Move to Windows 2000 Professional": http://www.microsoft.com/windows2000/guide/professional/solutions/toptenupgr ade.asp -Original Message- From: IronWorks [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, March 08, 2001 1:29 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: filmscanners: Anyone using Win2K? Does is manage color like W98SE? Which would be a reason for dual-boot systems, of course. Maris - Original Message - From: "Laurie Solomon" [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, March 08, 2001 2:18 PM Subject: RE: filmscanners: Anyone using Win2K? Does is manage color like W98SE? | My understanding is that Win2K is a replacement upgrade for Win NT. It | would be most useful to those who utilize large networks. It supposedly is | more stable than Win 98, 98SE, and ME; but it does not cupport the range of | drivers that are supported under the other versions - at least not yet. | | -Original Message- | From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] | [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | Sent: Thursday, March 08, 2001 10:17 AM | To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] | Subject: Re: filmscanners: Anyone using Win2K? Does is manage color like | W98SE? | | | In a message dated 03/07/2001 6:42:23 PM Eastern Standard Time, | [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: | | Just in case it hasn't been stated clearly, Win98SE, WinME and Win2K all | use the same colour management system. | | Rob | | | I was just getting ready to run out and spend $350 (?) on Win2K when I | already have WinMe. What are the advantages to the 2K "pro" version besides | the letters on the box? And who is it useful to? | Ed |
RE: filmscanners: Puzzled about display resolution
I use twin 21" monitors at work under Win2K. Once you have tried twin monitors you will be spoiled forever. It is not necessary to have two identical video cards, but some cards are not compatible with others. Try before you buy, or get a return guarantee. Matrox cards have had more than average compatibility problems in my experience. One way to do the twin monitor setup that need not be horribly expensive is to get one good quality 17" monitor and a video card that will allow you to go up to your desired resolution (I think 1280x1024 is about the max you would want to run on most 17" monitors) and color depth (usually 24 bit) at a refresh rate above 60Hz (in my experience, any refresh rate higher than 75Hz is just overkill and gives no additional image quality -- usually the opposite). Then get any old cheapo video card and monitor for the second screen. You can run this one at a much lower color depth (16 bit, 8 bit or even 4 bit), so it doesn't need as much video card power. Be sure you can get the refresh rate over 60 Hz, or it will be hard to look at for long, due to the flicker. You can put your image on the good monitor and put all the other stuff (taskbar, toolboxes, desktop icons, etc) on the cheapo screen. This gives you a nice large image and plenty of extra real estate for everything outside the image area. -Original Message- From: Edwin Eleazer [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, March 07, 2001 6:36 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: filmscanners: Puzzled about display resolution Heck, some of us are still using a 15" LCD display at 1024X768 32 bit, but saving for a 21" trinitron and another video card. The dual display is really the way to go, after trying it on a friends system. The LCD on a moveable arm, and the desk real estate occupied by the 21" is a very usable setup, great for photo editing. Does anyone use this type of setup, and what type of video cards? I have seen where the same make of card was a good idea, and my friends setup uses a NVIDIA Twinview card feeding both monitors. Edwin
RE: filmscanners: Win2K system requirements
If you have a 700 MHz Pentium III then you have a 700 MHz CPU. Maybe the 100 MHz refers to the bus speed. I wouldn't bother with a dual-boot setup unless you really have to do it to use hardware or software you cannot (or are not willing to) upgrade. It's kind of a pain. -Original Message- From: IronWorks [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, March 07, 2001 7:52 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: filmscanners: Win2K system requirements Thanks Eli. That was precisely my question. I have a 700MHz Pentium III and 384 MB of DRAM but a 100 MHz CPU. I use Partition Magic and have been considering a dual-boot setup for quite some time. Maris - Original Message - From: "Eli Bowen" [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, March 07, 2001 8:37 PM Subject: filmscanners: Win2K system requirements | I would not run Win2K with a 100 MHz CPU if that is what Ironworks | was asking. If it worked at all it would be horribly slow. Microsoft | recommends a minimum of 133 MHz CPU. | | As for bus speed, I am not aware of any minimum, but if there is a | minimum, I'm sure it is less than 133 MHz. | | This is all that is posted on the Win2K System Requirements page | (for the Professional version)( | http://www.microsoft.com/windows2000/guide/professional/sysreq/default.asp | ): | | "133 MHz or higher Pentium-compatible CPU. | 64 megabytes (MB) of RAM recommended minimum; more memory generally improves | responsiveness. | 2GB hard disk with a minimum of 650MB of free space. | Windows 2000 Professional supports single and dual CPU systems." | | | If you want to know if a particular computer is Win2K compliant, you | can try this page: | http://www.microsoft.com/windows2000/upgrade/compat/search/computers.asp | | | Eli | | -Original Message- | From: Arthur Entlich [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] | Sent: Wednesday, March 07, 2001 4:11 PM | To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] | Subject: Re: filmscanners: Anyone using Win2K? Does is manage color like | W98SE? | | | | | IronWorks wrote: | | Is a PC100 chip sufficient for Win2K? Microsoft's site recommends the | PC133 | minimum. | | Another possibility for some might be a dual boot system with 98SE and | also | 2K. | | Maris | | | Does Win 2K require a 133mHz motherboard bus? Can WIN 2K run on a | Celeron system CPU which uses a 66mHz bus? | | Art
RE: filmscanners: Puzzled about display resolution
Unfortunately, the Matrox "dual-head" cards require that the two monitors run at the same resolution, which can be a problem if your monitors are not the same size. We had one in my workgroup (the 400, not the newer 450) and it got passed around from person to person because no one liked it. Exactly why, I don't know, but no one seemed to be happy with it. Here is a very in-depth analysis of the 450: http://www.anandtech.com/showdoc.html?i=1315 -Original Message- From: Frank Paris [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, March 07, 2001 8:08 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: filmscanners: Puzzled about display resolution Try Matrox's latest, the 450, for $150. It has two video outputs build in. One you can run one at 1600x1200, the other up to 2048x1536. Takes only one slot. Frank Paris [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://albums.photopoint.com/j/AlbumList?u=62684 -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Eli Bowen Sent: Wednesday, March 07, 2001 7:33 PM To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]' Subject: RE: filmscanners: Puzzled about display resolution I use twin 21" monitors at work under Win2K. Once you have tried twin monitors you will be spoiled forever. It is not necessary to have two identical video cards, but some cards are not compatible with others. Try before you buy, or get a return guarantee. Matrox cards have had more than average compatibility problems in my experience.
RE: filmscanners: pc monitors
I have lots of experience with Nokia monitors, specifically the 445xi Plus. I do not recommend these monitors at all. A former employee here ordered a large number of them based on their impressive specs. They are not sharp, the screens seem excessively curved and they are difficult to look at for long periods of time. I would recommend almost anything rather than a Nokia. After about 7 years experience at home and in several businesses using various monitors and seeing 1) how easy they are to look at for long periods of time 2) how sharp and accurate they are 3) how long they maintain their brightness, contrast and color accuracy, I strongly recommend SONY monitors for any purchase in the low to medium price ranges. If you cannot afford one of the 19" or 21" SONYs, a smaller monitor that is more accurate and easier to look at may give you greater satisfaction in the long run. NEC monitors are pretty good, but don't seem to last as long as the SONYs. Various color distortions, focus problems and brightness/contrast fading seem to become problems for NECs before those problems arise on SONYs. I bought a used IBM P200 monitor (20" approx) a while back for about $300 that I am quite happy with. Not sure if this is typical of IBMs. I don't have any other experience with their monitors. The P200 is a few years old, but got good reviews when it was current. If you don't get a SONY, try to get something that has a Trinitron tube (made by SONY). They generally seem to be superior. I have found *no* correlation between dot pitch and image quality. Dot pitch is one of those specs on which people base buying decisions, and manufacturers seem to know this and use it as a selling point as if it was the best indication of image quality. The Nokias we have were bought specifically because they had a small dot pitch spec. Unfortunately, the person who made the purchase never bothered to look at the image quality before purchase or compare it with a different monitor. Good Luck! Eli -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, March 01, 2001 8:35 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: filmscanners: pc monitors i am considering buying a nokia 21 inch #445xi. it has a . 22 dot pitch and resolution of 2400x1600. the monitor is refurbished and is guaranteed for 3 years. price is $359. has anyone have any experience with this monitor and what do you think? thanks, joanna
RE: filmscanners: pc monitors
Here is a review of the 445xi Plus that reflects my experience as well: http://www.wickedpc.com/reviews/nokia445xiplus/ -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, March 01, 2001 8:35 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: filmscanners: pc monitors i am considering buying a nokia 21 inch #445xi. it has a . 22 dot pitch and resolution of 2400x1600. the monitor is refurbished and is guaranteed for 3 years. price is $359. has anyone have any experience with this monitor and what do you think? thanks, joanna
RE: filmscanners: dither vs haltoning (was File sizes, file formats, etc. for printing 8.5 x 11and 13 x 17...
Georges Seurat was the painter. -Original Message- From: Mike Kersenbrock [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, February 27, 2001 11:10 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: filmscanners: dither vs haltoning (was File sizes, file formats, etc. for printing 8.5 x 11and 13 x 17... Dithering is pretty old too. Was used by a painter with particularly famous painting (I have it on a coffee mug) "Sunday in the Park" or some such name. Artist's name doesn't come to mind either (just the image of the painting). But in any case, he used colored dots to produce other colors through dithering -- and this was quite some time ago. :-) Mike K.
RE: filmscanners: dither vs haltoning nitpicking
Perhaps you will think I'm biased, based on my email address, but I think "screen area" describes it quite well. Digital images are measured in pixels and the "screen area" setting tells the user how many pixels the area of the screen will display. What is wrong with that? When you change the "screen area" you are also changing the resolution in terms of pixels per inch of your screen. The only (slightly) confusing thing about it is that people usually use the term "resolution" along with expression (640x480, 800x600, etc) that are measures of screen area, rather than "resolutions" in the strict sense of the word (a number of pixels per linear dimension unit). -Original Message- From: Frank Paris [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, February 28, 2001 9:57 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: filmscanners: dither vs haltoning nitpicking Well, it's better than what Microsoft calls it, isn't it? Screen area? How the heck does that relate to anything?
RE: filmscanners: Re: bit depth and dynamic range
Paul, An addendum to Laurie's post: All color scanners have three channels: Red, Green and Blue (RGB). Some scanners have an additional infrared channel used for special scratch/dust removal features. So, a scanner that gives 8 bits per channel would give a total of 24 bits per pixel if it has three channels (RGB) or 36 bits per pixel if it has 4 channels (RGB+Infrared). A scanner that gives 12 bits per channel would give a total of 36 bits per pixel if it has three channels or 48 bits per pixel if it has 4 channels. -Original Message- From: Laurie Solomon [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, February 02, 2001 8:19 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: filmscanners: Re: bit depth and dynamic range Paul, "Dynamic range," typically refers to tonal range or the contrast range that the scanner can capture. 3.6 is considered very good for a CDD ( or is it CCD, I get confused) based scanner; drum scanners can get up into the 4.0 to 4.4 range. I believe 5.0 is the upper limit of the scale; but no scanner even gets as close as 4.6 to the best of my knowledge. "Color bit depth" refers to the number of bits per pixel; often it is divided by 4 to give the color bit depth per pixel per color channel; hence, 48 bits per pixel becomes 12 bits per channel. Standard bit depth is around 8 bits per channel with 12 bits per channel being usually called high Bit depth. It defines the amount of color and image information possible per color channel. However, not all that information is always used since most printers and programs work in the standard bit depth of 8 bits/channel or in 24 bit depth per pixel for all channels. The extra information comes in handy when the printer or program compresses the tonal scale or contrast range in permitting it to better determine where the gamma should be placed and where the highlight and shadow compression should take place. More information available the better the estimate by the application or device. Hope this helps. I know of no particular source that deals specifically with this, although it can be found discussed in a number of different books on scanning and on Photoshop. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of patton paul Sent: Friday, February 02, 2001 12:14 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: filmscanners: Re: bit depth and dynamic range I've just been reading some Nikon literature about their new scanners, and I have some questions about the terminology. The ad states that the coolscan IV ED yeilds 48 bit images (48 bits per pixel?). Later, it states that the scanner has a color bit depth of 24 or 36 bits. What does this refer to? It also states that the scanner has a dynamic range of 3.6. What is a scanner's dynamic range? Can anyone suggest an article somewhere on the web or elsewhere that explains all this? Thanks. __ Dr. Paul Patton Beckman Institute Rm 3027 405 N. Mathews St. University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign Urbana, Illinois 61801 work phone: (217)-265-0795 fax: (217)-244-5180 home phone: (217)-344-7863 homepage: http://www.staff.uiuc.edu/~ppatton/index.html "The most beautiful thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the source of all true art and science." -Albert Einstein __
RE: filmscanners: metamerism and Epson 2000P
I think the definition you are quoting is just incomplete, and confusing as a result. All it talks about is the fact that some object "look" the same under some conditions (even though their spectral response is different). The corollary (which is not included in the section you quote) is that under *other* conditions, the two objects will *not* look the same. Here are some other definitions, all of which agree with the definition provided at http://www.tssphoto.com/sp/dg/2000p/metamerism.html: 1) from: http://colour.derby.ac.uk/colour/info/glossary/m/Metamerism.html Colour Science Glossary Metameric Colour Samples (Metamer) A pair of colours which differ spectrally but which yield the same or similar tristimulus values under at least one set of viewing conditions. Metamerism A metamer which match each other under one set of conditions but mismatch when viewed under another. 2) from: http://www.colordome.com/art/psycho/05psy03.htm Metamerism Daylight Tungsten Two samples of textiles that match under one light but not under another one called a matameric pair The colour of a fabric can match that of another under one light but not under another. On the left are two green samples seen under daylight. On the right the same two samples are completely different under another light such as tungsten. This illusion can cost a client a lot of money if the colours haven't been checked under both lights. This is because the two samples are from different batches of the 'same colour' dyed with completely different chemicals. 3) from http://www.datacolor.com/meta.htm Metamerism - Terminology and Definitions Metamerism always involves a pair of objects. The two objects can be described as "metameric objects", or a "metameric pair". They are sometimes said to be "metameric", "exhibit metamerism", and/or be "metameric matches". Metameric Objects exhibit the following: They have different spectral reflectance factors (spectral curves). They match under at least one combination of illuminant and observer. They do not match under at least one combination of illuminant and observer. 4) from http://www.rohmhaas.com/company/plabs.dir/htmldocs/69blue.html Metamerism: Two colored objects made from two different dyes or pigments may look the same under one light source, but different under another light source. This is what is known as metamerism. Two different colors may appear to be exactly matched simply because the combination of spectral reflectance and source distribution is fortuitously matched! However, this pair will not be a perfect color match when viewed with another light source. The combination of spectral reflectance with the spectral distribution of the second light source will be different, thus the colors will be perceived as mismatched. The pair of colors are said to exhibit metamerism. Pairs of colored objects having the same spectral reflectance curves and therefore the same color perception for all light sources are nonmetameric and form an invariant pair. -Original Message- From: Frank Paris [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Sunday, January 28, 2001 11:20 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: filmscanners: metamerism and Epson 2000P -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Eli Bowen Sent: Tuesday, January 23, 2001 8:30 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: filmscanners: metamerism and Epson 2000P Here's a page specifically devoted to metamerism and the 2000P: http://www.tssphoto.com/sp/dg/2000p/metamerism.html I don't think this article is using the term correctly to describe the phenomenon they are referring to. To quote Wyszecki Stiles in "Color Science", "Metameric color stimuli are color stimuli with the same tristimulus values but different spectral radiant power distributions. An equivalent definition states that metameric color stimuli are color stimuli that have different spectral radiant power distributions but match in color for a given observer." (p. 184) Thus, metameric refers to two different objects having the same tristimulus values under the same illumination but different spectral reflectances. This article talks about the same object having different tristimulus values under different illuminations, just the opposite of the definition! The odd thing is, the article starts with the correct definition, then goes on to use it in just the opposite manner in which it is defined. Frank Paris [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://albums.photopoint.com/j/AlbumList?u=62684
filmscanners: metamerism and Epson 2000P
From: "Frequently asked questions about Colour Physics" http://www.colourware.co.uk/cpfaq.htm "Metamerism refers to the situation where two colour samples appear to match under one condition but not under another; the match is said to be conditional. Metamersim is usually discussed in terms of two illuminants (illuminant metamerism) whereby two samples may match under one illuminant but not under another. Other types of metamerism include geometrical metamerism and observer metamerism. Two samples that conditionally match are said to be a metameric pair. If two samples have identical reflectance spectra then they cannot be metameric - they are an unconditional match." From what I have read, the Epson 2000P inks are more metameric than most inks, so it is important to proof Epson 2000P prints using the illuminant under which they will be displayed (this is always true, but especially so with the Epson 2000P. Here's a page specifically devoted to metamerism and the 2000P: http://www.tssphoto.com/sp/dg/2000p/metamerism.html -Original Message- From: Frank Paris [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, January 23, 2001 6:14 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: filmscanners: SS4000 and LS-2000 real value? -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Laurie Solomon Sent: Tuesday, January 23, 2001 7:51 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: filmscanners: SS4000 and LS-2000 real value? It is my understanding that ... the color of the [Epson 2000P] inks tend to change colors under different lights reflecting ff of them from different angles. This happens for most objects, not just Epson 2000P inks. I believe it is called menorism (sp?) or something like that. Are you talking about metamerism? What you describe at any rate is not metamerism. Metamerism is two specimins that match under a specified illuminator and to a specified observer and whose spectral reflectances or transmittances different in the visible wavelengths. Metamerism is a good thing, not a bad thing. It is how you get color matching even if the primaries aren't the same in two devices.
RE: filmscanners: Scratched Negs Home C-41 processing
When it is so cheap to get color film developed by a lab (even a top quality professional lab) it seems hard to justify the trouble and expense of C-41 or E-6 processing at home, especially if a formaldehyde-based stabilizer is used. Formaldehyde is a known carcinogen with other bad health effects even at relatively low exposure levels. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, January 23, 2001 7:26 PM To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]' Subject: RE: filmscanners: Scratched Negs Home C-41 processing On Tuesday, January 23, Michael Wilkinson wrote: With a Three and a quarter minute dev time and a tolerance of less than a quarter of a degree you have to be very careful to get perfect negs, even agitation is critical. Fortunately we're talking about print film, where perfect negatives are less of an issue. The point of all that latitude in negative film is to have some room for error in the process. I understand why Kodak's recommendations for commercial labs would be extremely precise, but it's actually pretty hard to screw up badly enough that you can't get a nice scan out of it. Color temperatures and exposures are never perfect to begin with, and you're going to have color-correct anyway. I would suggest that for consistent quality you avoid hand processing or buy a used one shot rotary discard processing machine. That's quite a step up from a $20 Paterson plastic tank and a Rubbermaid storage bin for a water bath, isn't it. grin Suggestion noted, and I were making any money taking pictures, I probably wouldn't be doing my own film. But I'm doing this for fun, and I think there are others on this list who also see this as a hobby. I'd read plenty of dire warnings before I started about how impossibly difficult color processing was. In practice it's been much easier than advertised to get acceptable results. I don't mean to sound defensive about it. It can be a hassle getting set up and figuring out the routine, and I know that it wouldn't be worth the trouble for most photographers. But when I see blanket warnings of "don't try this at home", I feel like pointing out that it actually is possible. I don't intend to take any processing business away from commercial labs-- other than my own of course--but I'm happy with the results I'm getting and others might be too if they tried it. Best wishes, Tim Victor [EMAIL PROTECTED]
